|
Dwarven Rogue Arcane Trickster
Arcane Trickster requirement
Spells: Ability to cast mage hand and at least one arcane
spell of 2nd level or higher.
If you have a level 10 rogue, by then you can choose Minor Magic to give the ability to cast Mage Hand
and
Major Magic to unlock the Advanced Talent Dispelling Attack which inflicts Dispel Magic, a 3rd level Arcane Spell.
"Dispelling Attack* (Su): Opponents that are dealt sneak
attack damage by a rogue with this ability are affected by a
targeted dispel magic, targeting the lowest-level spell effect
active on the target. The caster level for this ability is equal
to the rogue’s level. A rogue must have the major magic
rogue talent before choosing dispelling attack."
It does not say that the spell is "Cast" but refers to the rogue as a caster. Would having these talents technically fulfill the requirements for an Arcane Trickster?
|
|
Looks like the answer is no.
Spell-Like Abilities, Casting, and Prerequisites: Does a creature with a spell-like ability count as being able to cast that spell for the purpose of prerequisites or requirements?
Only if the pre-requisite calls out the name of a spell explicitly. For instance, the Dimensional Agility feat (Ultimate Combat) has "ability to use the abundant step class feature or cast dimension door" as a prerequisite; a barghest has dimension door as a spell-like ability, so the barghest meets the "able to cast dimension door prerequisite for that feat. However, the barghest's dimension door would not meet requirements such as "Ability to cast 4th level spells" or "Ability to cast arcane spells".
posted February 2015 | back to top
I guess technically this would work, but it would be rather bad, having no spellcasting progression to advance, and no directive about what to do if you don't have a spellcasting progression to advance.
Edit: Never mind, no it doesn't -- had the SLA FAQ nerf backwards for a moment.
|
It does not say that the spell is "Cast" but refers to the rogue as a caster. Would having these talents technically fulfill the requirements for an Arcane Trickster?
Looks like the answer is no.
You are correct. The answer is "No.". Being able to make a sneak attack that affects the victim as a targeted dispel magic is not the same as being able to cast dispel magic. Also, Dispelling Attack isn't a spell-like ability; it's a supernatural ability. Not a spell, not a spell-like ability and the ability to make this attack is not the ability to cast the spell, so it doesn't fulfill the PrC's requirement.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you have Arcane Anthology player companion, you can make an Eldritch Scoundrel rogue that will get you into Arcane Trickster pretty quickly. If you have the Dirty Tactics Toolbox player companion, you can take Accomplished Sneak Attacker, which gets you in even quicker. I've got a build I'm working on that is going to end up as an Eldritch Scoundrel 4 / Arcane Trickster X. It doesn't qualify for Unchained Rogues, which is not a huge deal as far as I'm concerned.
The problem with going Eldritch Scoundrel into Arcane Trickster is that Arcane Trickster was designed for 9/9 casters, but you will be entering with and progressing 6/9 spellcasting while degrading to d6, 1/2 BAB.
^It will work that way, it just isn't as good (by a significant margin) as doing a 9/9 caster-based Arcane Trickster build.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Meh.
A) A typical Arcane Trickster would be taking a hit to spell level anyways, to make the sneak attack req.
B) Optimization isn't really required for PFS play. With the exception of a few outliers, most scenarios aren't especially lethal.
C) I'm good with my choice. There's always something better. There's always a build that will do what your build does, only better. It may be suboptimal to you, but whatever. I'm not trying to win Pathfinder here.
|
|
I went with Exploiter Wizard so I could Dimensional Slide. I also took more Wizard than required for the extra distance and a couple other goodies.
|
|
I'm not trying to win Pathfinder here.Insisting someone is trying to win Pathfinder is akin to making a personal attack, which I really wish people would have figured out by now. It doesn't strengthen your position, it just reads as a weak attempt at painting your target jn a negative light.
So please stop doing that.
Wasn't saying he was. Just that I wasn't. Really wish people would stop applying a comment that I applied to myself to other people. Please stop doing that.
You can optimize without trying to win Pathfinder, just like everyone trying to win Pathfinder isn't optimized. But when somebody dismisses a proposed build because something else can do it better, and their counterargument is basically, "yeah, but this does it better" then they make a case for trying to win Pathfinder. You may not like the phrase, bjt their are peopl that treat our shared hobby as a solo game that they have to win on their own.
|
|
But when somebody dismisses a proposed build because something else can do it better, and their counterargument is basically, "yeah, but this does it better" then they make a case for trying to win Pathfinder.
No, they are pointing out that something else will do the same thing but better, mostly because people tend to have a better time when their character doesn't struggle to achieve their core functionality